Musings on Leyland

[AarhusTr6]

Hi

 

I live in Denmark (but British) and was chatting to my neighbour over an Øl (beer!) who spent many years as a car dealer.

 

He said back in the 70s Danes generally loved cars from England but he started seeing more and more come back to his workshop with small defects. He said the cars on the whole was good but new cars were and still are very expensive here so customers expect a lot. He said he saw more and more customers for this reason move to German made cars and they simply had less issues. I found this quite sad to hear. Also saw this is a book I bought on TR6 history.

 

So why do we love these TR6s? I personally think as a designed car they are great and the small build issues can be overcome.

 

Just pondering on a Sunday.

 

Edited September 3, 2017 by AarhusTr6

[john.r.davies]

In Denmark, new car tax was ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY PER CENT of the purchase price. Since 2016, it has only been 150%.

So yes, Danes expect a lot!

 

John

[AarhusTr6]

Yes Dave. . . mind-blowing car prices here. . . but was just pondering on build quality and why is was so bad at times.

Edited September 3, 2017 by AarhusTr6

[Alec Pringle]

BL management, pure and simple.

 

Cheers,

 

Alec

[Motorsport Mickey]

In the 1970s indifferent management of many of the UK car making companies with lack of investment was caused by a general malaise as a hangover from the war years.

Our transport system for rail had been pinned upon coal because the island is sat on pillars of the stuff for an energy source as against as yet undiscovered oil reserves which would have modernised a state controlled rail system based upon a diesel train system and made the internal movements of materials more efficient and less costly.

This was coupled with heavy infiltration of the car and truck making unions by extreme left wing communist factions which saw the delay or destruction of UKcar making industry as a reason in itself, and a workforces so less enamoured by what bad management could offer them that they fell for the stories and moonshine that purported to be a way forward.

 

Try this for an entry grade introduction

 

when you've watched it set fire to your computer , it's heartbreaking.

 

Mick Richards

Edited September 3, 2017 by Motorsport Mickey

[TRseks]

When I was young it was the normal perception that Japanese cars was "very good", and English cars were "very bad". In the 70's in Norway English cars sold a lot of cars but this quickly changed as new cars suffered from a lot of problems, so much so that they actually almost stopped selling them altogether.

 

Anyway when I got my first car it was a Toyota in need of a lot of work. When I took things apart I experienced that a lot of screws and bolts was stuck, rusted and snapped when removed. Still I didn't know any different and still thought that Japanese cars were "good".

The Toyota was 12 years old when got it.

 

When I some years ago bought a 43 year old Triumph TR6 I was expecting problems with rusted/stuck/snapped bolts but no, everything came apart easily, and a lot of things could be taken apart, cleaned and re-installed in working order, not like a Japanese car were switches etc was not possible to repair and had to be thrown.

 

The conclusion is of course that it was wrong to believe that Japanese cars was so much better than British cars, better put together yes, better quality control, better management yes. But quality is more than that, quality of engineering, quality of materials used.

 

The result is that that an old British car is much easier to restore that an old Japanese.

 

Magnus

[JohnG]

BL management, pure and simple.

 

Cheers,

 

Alec

Poor management for sure Alec, rusty steel panels fitted in production, but. . . . .

 

My 2 brothers-in-law worked at Cowley, one on the assembly line, one at pressed steel fisher.

 

They spent more time out on strike than in work

A very small number of people who ran the unions at Cowley were determined to bring the factories to a close and in the end, they did.

 

Remember Red Robbie in the Midlands?

[AarhusTr6]

So were these top union guys truly trying to break and destroy the business and if so (dumb question) what of the massive loss of jobs?

 

Sorry - Thatcher kid here and struggling to understand the logic.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wl7tEBF8GU

Edited September 4, 2017 by AarhusTr6

[Mike C]

In Australia the Datsun 240 Z caused a big drop in British car sales . It lifted the bar several notches in most areas- engineering, performance, comfort, cost etc . I believe Triumph and MG survived here because Datsun never made a convertible - it was difficult to get convertibles approved under the US rules in 1970, and the 240Z was aimed at the US market.

 

But the Japanese could also never capture the spirit of the British sports car for those that wanted it.

[Alec Pringle]

Hi John,

 

Derek Robinson, old-school, hardline Communist, should have been put up against a wall and short at dawn.

 

That simple

 

Cheers

 

Alec

[TRseks]

Maybe the Unions was just a sympton, and not the real problem? If the workers let communists represent them sure they must have been up extremely unhappy. I think the fall of the british car undustri was complex; bad management, lack of investing in modern tooling etc, lack of communication from the floor to the top management hence the inresponsable actions of unions, other reasons could be the loss of the empire and with that the market that the colonies represented.

 

One issue that is not often discussed is that UK joined the EU in 1972, with a flow of imported cars available without any of the previous import duties, was that the final blow to an industry that was already on its knees?

 

 

 

Magnus

Edited September 4, 2017 by TRseks

[Keith66]

Hi Magnus

 

Joining the EU in the 70's did allow the import of cars without tariffs, but really was a 1970's Fiat, Renault or Peugeot or VW that much better than Fords, Vauxhall's or Austins of the day?

 

The problems of the industry were complex, from bad management to communist leaning unions (although not as bad as in Italy from documentaries i've seen) to quality control and strikes.

 

But we as a country, for whatever reason preferred to buy from anywhere rather than home grown.

 

And now apart from a few bit part players all our car makers are long gone or just assembly facilities for foreign owned companies.

 

Sad really as some of those 70's BL cars we top draw classic designs, how far ahead of the curve were the SD1 and the Range Rover and don't forget the Mini a generation earlier.

 

Keith

[TRseks]

Hi Magnus

 

Joining the EU in the 70's did allow the import of cars without tariffs, but really was a 1970's Fiat, Renault or Peugeot or VW that much better than Fords, Vauxhall's or Austins of the day?

 

The problems of the industry were complex, from bad management to communist leaning unions (although not as bad as in Italy from documentaries i've seen) to quality control and strikes.

 

But we as a country, for whatever reason preferred to buy from anywhere rather than home grown.

 

And now apart from a few bit part players all our car makers are long gone or just assembly facilities for foreign owned companies.

 

Sad really as some of those 70's BL cars we top draw classic designs, how far ahead of the curve were the SD1 and the Range Rover and don't forget the Mini a generation earlier.

 

Keith

Hi Magnus

 

Joining the EU in the 70's did allow the import of cars without tariffs, but really was a 1970's Fiat, Renault or Peugeot or VW that much better than Fords, Vauxhall's or Austins of the day?

 

 

Keith

Well, they were not much better, but at least the electrical cables were connected for example, I remember lots of story's from mechanics working on brand new cars to get them ready for sale as they came as they said "half-fabricata" from the UK factories... I think for the car industry in the UK The EU membership could not have come at a worse time, if UK had not become a member in 1972 they would had at least a better chance at selling on the domestic marked, or they were doomed anyway who knows.

 

 

Magnus

[PaulAA]

some of those 70's BL cars we top draw classic designs

 

Keith

 

Hmmm... Morris Marina, Austin Allegro, Austin 18/22, Austin Maxi... I agree that the SD1 and the Range Rover were groundbreakers, Keith, but I'll wager that the mongrels outweighed the thoroughbreds. Plenty of good designs seemed destined never to see the light of day. I harbour a particular resentment for the Maxi my father had and it's outstandingly awful gearchange.

 

I would also contend that there is more to the campaign pursued by Red Robbo and his ilk. German industry has been heavily unionised throughout the post-war period and worker protection in Japanese industry is unquestionable, but the unions in the UK seemed determined to do grievous damage to their employers - and succeeded. Both Germany and Japan engage workers at all levels in production committees, giving them both authority and responsibility, which British industry traditionally shied away from. With the benefit of hindsight, antagonism and resentment on both sides of the divide seem to have undermined the capacity to maintain Britain's lead in supply and innovation.

 

As a naive teenager in the late 70s, it used to amuse me that my parents' generation and older would harbour vehement resentment towards the Japanese and "what they did to us during the war", yet unfailingly bought Japanese cars.

 

Paul

[Keith66]

Hi

 

Completly agree there were mongrels, to many, but i'll again say were alot of the competition that much better?

 

Renaults 6, 12 and 16 all made it well into the 1980's from the mid to late 60's so were way out of date, and from what i can recall rusty Lancias and Fiat 124's were the norm, so not great.

 

And you make a very good point that whilst heavily unionised the German companies engaged with the workforce and they improved things together. Our management and workers seemed to be at loggerheads and we ended up working against each other, each trying to "win" the battle.

 

In the end that approach lost all of the jobs, management and worker.

 

I largely kept the faith well into the Rover days owning, metro's, both ordinary and MG, Honda Rovers, a 400, an original MGF and currently an 03 MG TF (sorry for swearing on here, LOL) both of which were really the wife's and do you know what apart from the odd minor fault no issues really.

 

The only big car problem i had was in a company Passat which broke down whilst on hol's in Cornwall, on the journey back luck would have it and stranded us for about 5 hours until we got a replacement car from the AA to carry on, as nothing could be done with it at the roadside.

 

Cheers

 

Keith

[MostEasterlySteve]

When this topic comes up, many people apply a very unsophisticated reasoning to the extremely complex and multi-dimensional problems faced by British Leyland and the UK car industry in general.

 

One camp blames militant unions., another poor management and another cites poor cars and/or build quality. But it was all those reasons and many many more. I do get quite tired of seeing how people vastly over-simplify the catastrophic mess that BL became. There were some good cars. There was some good management. There were some responsible and far-sighted union bosses too.

 

It's nice to be able to make simple, crass soundbites to explain the loss of the world's third largest car maker. The truth is much harder to understand, even if you could identify it effectively.

[TRseks]

When this topic comes up, many people apply a very unsophisticated reasoning to the extremely complex and multi-dimensional problems faced by British Leyland and the UK car industry in general.

 

One camp blames militant unions., another poor management and another cites poor cars and/or build quality. But it was all those reasons and many many more. I do get quite tired of seeing how people vastly over-simplify the catastrophic mess that BL became. There were some good cars. There was some good management. There were some responsible and far-sighted union bosses too.

 

It's nice to be able to make simple, crass soundbites to explain the loss of the world's third largest car maker. The truth is much harder to understand, even if you could identify it effectively.

Well said, seems like most people blaim the unions, which is in my opinion unfair. Can also understand why Thatcher "killed the unions", even if this was also unfair in my opinion. That the unions messed it up was a symptom, not the real underlaying problem. Look at Germany; unions have been there all the time as a respected part and I think everyone can agree it has worked and is still working reasonable good?

Edited September 5, 2017 by TRseks

[stuart]

Here`s a good example of some of the Leyland problems https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRyN4XhJ_ms

And another https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRUmebnaTP4

 

Stuart.

Edited September 5, 2017 by stuart

[AarhusTr6]

Hi

 

If you look at the picture I uploaded with the washer being sprayed over and the dribbled paint, i'd say its also about accountability. Was this a modern LEAN six Sigma type organisation they would go back to who the worker was who did this and not just fire him/her but understand why did it happen. was it lack of training, lack of supervision, lack of leadership, lack of final checks?

 

From my experience when this sort of behaviour happens is the sign of a sick company.

 

Still love my TR though - - despite its faults :-)

[MostEasterlySteve]

From my experience when this sort of behaviour happens is the sign of a sick company.

 

A sick company, yes in many ways. But there was no single cause and there would have been no single remedy.

 

It was a company created due to government intervention and direction. It was an almost unprecedentedly disparate array of companies, each with its own identity, market and internal culture. Competitors for a generation forced together creating pressure to rationalise and streamline. There was no road map for that on this kind of scale. I doubt there was another comparable example anywhere in the world.

 

Social structures were changing. Aspirations among normal workers were rapidly increasing. There was inflation and a desire to ensure wages kept pace. Managers were moved into areas in which they lacked relevant skills. Production methods were evolving rapidly. Paint systems were changing. The first generation of bonded structural windscreens came along. Electronic ignition systems brought about by rapidly changing emission control requirements in world markets that had become completely fragmented in their legislative emissions requirements. The Japanese car industry shamelessly, and shamefully, copied the best British engineering practice and componentry but we did nothing to protect our intellectual property.

 

There was a general complacency in British industry. We had been at the vanguard of manufacturing since the industrial revolution. No one thought a British company of this magnitude could fail. Leyland was an innovator and paid the price for the unreliability of new technologies. Leyland didn't always do enough to appraise the after-sales service network of how to identify and rectify faults. The public could get competent, dull but well equipped and reliable Japanese cars for the same price as (far more advanced) Austin or Morris.

 

There's so many reasons it didn't work out. You might almost say the result was inevitable. But just to say "lazy management" or "militant unions" is absolute nonsense.

 

Sorry for the rant. I was (briefly) an industrial economist and studied the Leyland issue when I was at university many years ago. It just annoys me when people trot out infantile explanations for an amazingly complex set of problems.

 

Normal service may now be resumed!....

[Cew]

As much as anything to do with the demise of BL was the complacency e.g "we're British so it must be the only way to do things". I remember talking to someone from Gardner engines, at a commercial motor show, about turbocharging and he completely poo pood the idea as clearly not the way to go and to suggest so was ridiculous!. Well they finally did turbo charge an engine but 20 years after it had become acceptable and reliable on lorry engines, BTW Gardner no longer exists absorbed by Perkins I believe.

 

The same mentality existed at BL " Johnny foreigner can't design/make cars as good as ours" and " There is no demand or need for a four door Range Rover". Admittedly they were starved of investment and robbed Peter to pay Paul so development of vehicles such as the RR and Jaguar, which had strong export sales, were held back in favour of bread and butter models that nobody wanted.

 

As has been said, weak management and militant unions were not the only factors but when the Longbidge works were turning suppliers vehicles away because they were not a British Leyland marque nothing was done until they realised that they were running out of parts to build cars and modified this rule to British made vehicles only but again this backfired as Swedish, German and Dutch made vehicles were rapidly becoming the choice of hauliers as they offered far superior performance and driver comfort.

[Denis]

British Cars have always been 'Cheap & cheerful'...at the end of the day they were all about making money, not meant to be engineering masterpieces!

 

Take British Sports Cars for example...the TR6 produced on a chassis of previous models, just updated a bit, bodywork updated a bit...Bash out nearly 100,000 of them, export nearly all of them to make foreign income, preferable US dollars! Yanks love 'Sporty Cars' Oh and chuck a few (9,000)at the UK market...job done!

 

What did you expect for just over a thousand quid...A Roller or a Ferrari ? ...Okay I'll get my coat! (again)